DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-35 are pending in this application.
Claims 8-20, 22 and 26 are canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-35 are patent-eligible under Step 2A or Step 2B of the USPTO’s patent eligibility analysis because claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-35 recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Even without relying on the streamlined analysis, claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-35 would still be patent-eligible because the claims would amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Because Applicant’s Specification details technical solution and claim 1 includes steps to perform the technical solution as a result of the technical problem, claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea. The patent-eligibility analysis below follows Director Memorandum, Subject Matter Eligibility, dated in July, 2024. Examiner noted that “with new and emerging technologies, the “something more” …we need to evaluate, for example, when the claimed system changes the architecture itself-e.g., how information flow, not just what it does- that may satisfy eligibility”. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 21 and 28 recite obtaining audio, determining a first command, obtaining additional audio, determining a second command based on the audio and the additional audio and executing the second command.
[Abstract idea indicators]
Listening audio to infer a purpose or intent is an activity of comprehension, i.e., a cognitive process —a task humans routinely perform mentally or with conventional tools.
Determining a command --- making and planning steps that are mental processes.
Listening another audio and Determining an updated command --- decision-making, which is a form of organizing human activity / mental process.
Executing the command --- no specific technical mechanism for executing is recited.
These steps are information processing and decision-making — activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and that courts/USPTO treat as abstract ideas.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong One:Yes — the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (mental processes + organizing human activity).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a practical application?
The claim must apply the abstract idea in a way that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Here:
The claim applies the abstract idea in the context of performing an action based on command.
The “computing device” and “voice-enabled device” context is a field-of-use limitation — it confines the idea to a specific environment but doesn’t change the nature of the abstract idea.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong Two:No — the claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application that improves computer technology.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
Now we ask: Do the additional claim elements (individually or in combination) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
Generic components: computing device — standard computer hardware.
Processing rules: generic data structures for authorization checks.
The combination appears to be a generic computer implementation of an abstract workflow.
Conclusion for Step 2B:No inventive concept is apparent — the claim recites known computer components executing generic functions.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 29-35, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-35 are rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 21, 23-25 and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Finkelstein et al., (US Pub. 2018/0260680).
Regarding claim 1, Finkelstein discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device via a voice-enabled device, a first portion of a user utterance ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock’ which is indicative of “first portion”);
determining, based on a processing rule, that the first portion corresponds to a first command ([0056][0074]-[0076][0185]-[0188] analyzing the text and confidence values to determine an intent of the user in speaking the received utterance; ‘remind me to call Jeff at six o’clock’ is indicative of a “first command”);
processing, during the first portion of the user utterance, the first command for execution (Figs. 2 and 3, [0056][0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] translating this text phrase into machine-executable language that is passed to the intent handler for further processing; during a user speaks utterance, a voice listener receives audio data and utilizes speech recognition functionality to translate spoken utterances into text);
receiving, by the computing device via the voice-enabled device, a second portion of the user utterance ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock’, after the user pause, receiving second user phrase ‘I mean Mike’, the underlined parts are indicative of “second portion”),
determining that the second portion and the first portion together correspond to a second command, wherein the second command is different than the first command ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] determining that the intent associated with the second phrase is most likely related to the intent associated with the prior phrase; the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…I mean Mike’ is indicative of “the second portion and the first portion together”, as recited in claim. ‘remind me to call is indicative of “second command”);
ending, based at least in part on the second command, the processing of the first command ([0057][0074]-[0079][0148][0185]-[0188] after processing for analyzing and determining intent by intent handler is done, resolvers may be utilized to execute based on the determined intent; ‘remind me to call Jeff at six o’clock’, which is indicative of “first command” and previously-established commitment, is ending to process because the person whom the user tries to reach for the call has been changed/corrected from Jeff to Mike); and
processing the second command for execution ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] determining and processing the final command corresponding to the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., “Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…[pause] I mean Mike”, wherein the final command is ‘remind me to call
Regarding claim 2, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 1, and Finkelstein further discloses:
determining a transcription of the first portion of the user utterance; and determining that the transcription of the first portion of the user utterance comprises the first command ([0068]-[0071] generating text by speech recognition engine).
Regarding claim 3, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 1, and Finkelstein further discloses:
determining, based on the processing rule, a level of confidence that the first portion of the user utterance is indicative of the first command ([0069]-[0071] utilizing confidence values in processing recognized text and determining a user's intent);
Regarding claim 4, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 3, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein processing the first command for execution comprises determining that the level of confidence satisfies a threshold ([0069][0074][0124][0185]-[0188] analyzing the text and confidence values to determine an intent of the user in speaking the received utterance; [0124][0223][0224][0243][0254] utilizing a predetermined threshold, and selecting each user intent that has a confidence value exceeding the threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 1, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein the processing rule comprises one or more context-based rules associated with the user device ([0080]-[0085] intent handler may user entity confidence values and context information which are associated with entity information in order to select an intent template from the list of N-best intent templates).
Regarding claim 6, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 1, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein the second command comprises the first portion of the user utterance and the second portion of the user utterance ([0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., “Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…[pause] I mean Mike” or “Please remind me to call Jeff and Mike at six o'clock…[pause] not Mike”).
Regarding claim 7, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 1, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein ending the processing of the first command comprises causing the voice-enabled device to at least one of: terminate processing of the first command or terminate execution of the first command ([0185]-[0188] not processing the previous command by replacing the reference to “Jeff” in the action component of this phrase with “Mike” or to remove the reference to “and Mike” from the action component of this phrase).
Regarding claim 21, Finkelstein discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device via a voice-enabled device, a first portion of a user utterance ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock’ which is indicative of “first portion”);
determining, based on a processing rule, that the first portion corresponds to a first command ([0056][0074]-[0076][0185]-[0188] analyzing the text and confidence values to determine an intent of the user in speaking the received utterance; ‘remind me to call Jeff at six o’clock’ is indicative of a “first command”);
processing, during the first portion of the user utterance, the first command for execution (Figs. 2 and 3, [0056][0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] translating this text phrase into machine-executable language that is passed to the intent handler for further processing; during a user speaks utterance, a voice listener receives audio data and utilizes speech recognition functionality to translate spoken utterances into text);
receiving, by the computing device via the voice-enabled device, a second portion of the user utterance ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock’, after the user pause, receiving second user phrase ‘I mean Mike’, the underlined parts are indicative of “second portion”),
causing, based on the first portion and the second portion of the user utterance together corresponding to a second command, wherein the second command is different than the first command, the processing rule to be disabled ([0057][0074]-[0079][0148][0185]-[0188] after processing for analyzing and determining intent by intent handler is done, resolvers may be utilized to execute based on the determined intent; determining that the intent associated with the second phrase is most likely related to the intent associated with the prior phrase; the speech utterance including two portion, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…I mean Mike’ is indicative of “the second portion and the first portion together”, as recited in claim. ‘remind me to call is indicative of “second command”);
ending, based at least in part on the second command, the processing of the first command ([0057][0074]-[0079][0148][0185]-[0188] after processing for analyzing and determining intent by intent handler is done, resolvers may be utilized to execute based on the determined intent; ‘remind me to call Jeff at six o’clock’, which is indicative of “first command” and previously-established commitment, is ending to process because the person whom the user tries to reach for the call has been changed/corrected from Jeff to Mike); and
processing the second command for execution ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] determining and processing the final command corresponding to the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., “Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…[pause] I mean Mike”, wherein the final command is ‘remind me to call
Regarding claim 23, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 21, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein causing the processing rule to be disabled comprises determining that the second portion is indicative of a second command (the feature of “the second portion is indicative of a second command” is not clear because claim 21 recites “the first portion and the second portion of the user utterance together corresponding to a second command”. For examining purpose, it is interpreted as “the second portion is included in a second command”. Finkelstein, [0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] determining that the intent associated with the second phrase is most likely related to the intent associated with the prior phrase; the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., 1) “Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…[pause] I mean Mike” or 2)“Please remind me to call Jeff and Mike at six o'clock…[pause] not Mike” is indicative of “the second portion and the first portion together correspond to a second command”, as recited in claim).
Regarding claim 24, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 21, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein a second command comprises the first portion of the user utterance and the second portion of the user utterance ([0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., 1) “Please remind me to call Mike at six o'clock” or 2)“Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock” which are indicative of “a second command comprises the first portion of the user utterance and the second portion of the user utterance”).
Regarding claim 25, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 21, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein the processing rule comprises one or more context-based rules associated with the user device ([0080]-[0085] intent handler may user entity confidence values and context information which are associated with entity information in order to select an intent template from the list of N-best intent templates).
Regarding claim 27, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 21, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein ending the processing of the first command for execution comprises causing the voice-enabled device to at least one of: terminate processing of the first command or terminate execution of the first command ([0185]-[0188] not processing the previous command by replacing the reference to “Jeff” in the action component of this phrase with “Mike” or to remove the reference to “and Mike” from the action component of this phrase).
Regarding claim 28, Finkelstein discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first portion of a user utterance ([0075][0185]-[0188] receiving the speech utterance, e.g., ‘Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock’ which is indicative of “first portion”);
determining that a level of confidence that the first portion of the user utterance is indicative of a first command satisfies a threshold ([0069][0074][0124][0185]-[0188] analyzing the text and confidence values to determine an intent of the user in speaking the received utterance; [0124][0223][0224][0243][0254] utilizing a predetermined threshold, and selecting each user intent that has a confidence value exceeding the threshold);
based on the level of confidence satisfying the threshold, processing, during the first portion of the user utterance, the first command for execution (Figs. 2 and 3, [0056][0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] translating this text phrase into machine-executable language that is passed to the intent handler for further processing; during a user speaks utterance, a voice listener receives audio data and utilizes speech recognition functionality to translate spoken utterances into text);
determining that the first portion and a second portion of the user utterance together correspond to a second command, wherein the second command is different than the first command ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] determining that the intent associated with the second phrase is most likely related to the intent associated with the prior phrase; the speech utterance including two portion, e.g., “Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…I mean Mike” is indicative of “the second portion and the first portion together”, as recited in claim. ‘remind me to call Mike at six o’clock’ is indicative of “second command”); and
ending, based at least in part on the second command, the processing of the first command ([0057][0074]-[0079][0148][0185]-[0188] after processing for analyzing and determining intent by intent handler is done, resolvers may be utilized to execute based on the determined intent; ‘remind me to call Jeff at six o’clock’, which is indicative of “first command” and previously-established commitment, is ending to process because the person whom the user tries to reach for the call has been changed/corrected from Jeff to Mike); and
processing the second command for execution ([0074]-[0079][0185]-[0188] determining and processing the final command corresponding to the speech utterance including two portions, e.g., “Please remind me to call Jeff at six o'clock…[pause] I mean Mike”, wherein the final command is ‘remind me to call
Regarding claim 29, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 28, and Finkelstein further discloses:
determining, based on a processing rule, that the first portion corresponds to a first command ([0074][0185]-[0188] analyzing the text and confidence values to determine an intent of the user in speaking the received utterance).
Regarding claim 30, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 29, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein at least one of the level of confidence or the threshold are associated with the processing rule ([0069][0074][0124][0185]-[0188] analyzing the text and confidence values to determine an intent of the user in speaking the received utterance; [0124][0223][0224][0243][0254] utilizing a predetermined threshold, and selecting each user intent that has a confidence value exceeding the threshold).
Regarding claim 31, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 28, and Finkelstein further discloses:
determining a transcription of the first portion of the user utterance; and determining that the transcription of the first portion of the user utterance comprises the first command ([0068]-[0071] generating text by speech recognition engine).
Regarding claim 32, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 28, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein ending the processing of the first command comprises ending, based on the first portion and the second portion corresponding to the second command, the processing of the first command ([0185]-[0188] stop processing by modifying the previously-established commitment to replace the reference to “Jeff” in the action component of this phrase with “Mike” or to remove the reference to “and Mike” from the action component of this phrase).
Regarding claim 33, Finkelstein discloses the method of claim 28, and Finkelstein further discloses:
wherein ending the processing of the first command comprises causing a voice-enabled device associated with the user utterance to at least one of: terminate processing of the first command or terminate execution of the first command ([0185]-[0188] stop processing by modifying the previously-established commitment to replace the reference to the next input portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al., (US Pub. 2018/0260680) in view of Schalk et al., (US Pub. 2010/0250243).
Regarding claim 34, Finkelstein discloses method of claim 21, wherein processing the second command for execution.
Finkelstein does not explicitly teach however Schalk does explicitly teach:
determining a level of confidence that the first portion of the user utterance and the second portion of the user utterance together are indicative of the second command; and determining that the level of confidence satisfies a threshold (Fig. 4, [0014][0025][0055] determining a confidence score of speech recognition, and based upon the confidence score, the automated dialog is continued with the person if the confidence score meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of executing device using speech recognition as taught by Finkelstein with the method of recognizing speech using scores and a predetermined threshold as taught by Schalk to provide a safe and enjoyable user interface and to improve accuracy of speech recognition (Schalk, [0003]).
Regarding claim 35, Finkelstein discloses method of claim 21, wherein processing the second command for execution.
Finkelstein does not explicitly teach however Schalk does explicitly teach:
determining, based on the processing rule, a level of confidence that the first portion of the user utterance is indicative of the first command; and
determining that the level of confidence satisfies a threshold (Fig. 4, [0014][0025][0055] determining a confidence score of speech recognition, and based upon the confidence score, the automated dialog is continued with the person if the confidence score meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659